hussEyquation
Menu

Explore hussEyquation

NBA player comparison

Jack Sikma vs. Maurice Cheeks: Career comparison

hussEyquationCareer impact · regular season
Regular-season verdict

Jack Sikma ranks higher in career impact

Impact comparison

Box impact estimates points per 100 possessions above each season's league average. Higher is better. Career ranks and average league finishes work the other way: lower is better.

#92LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#100
+5.2LeadsPeak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+4.3
+3.7LeadsBest 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+3.6
8.3LeadsBest 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better10.7
+3,292 ptsPoints above replacementCumulative regular-season value+3,330 ptsLeads
2LeadsTop-10 impact seasons1

Career Impact Rank places Jack Sikma #92 and Maurice Cheeks #100. It combines league finishes across each player's best three, five, and ten regular seasons, giving the most weight to the best three. Maurice Cheeks had more total career value.

Regular season only. Impact figures are estimates; small gaps are not exact. Playoffs, awards and titles do not determine the verdict.

Career impact · regular seasonhusseyquation.com/compare/jack-sikma/maurice-cheeks/career
Career Impact RankSee exactly how both rankings are calculatedJack Sikma13.427 · No. 92Maurice Cheeks14.093 · No. 100

Only the three league-finish windows below determine Career Impact Rank. Career Value and peak impact are separate measures; neither adds points to this calculation. Lower composite scores rank higher.

Jack Sikma

13.427 composite · No. 92 all-time

Jack Sikma's Career Composite windows
Window and finishes usedAverage finishWeightContribution
Best 3No. 61984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111983–84Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate8.33350%4.167
Best 5No. 61984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111983–84Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 271987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate14.60030%4.380
Best 10No. 61984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111983–84Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 271987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 291985–86Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 301988–89Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 331979–80Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 361980–81Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 431978–79Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate24.40020%4.880

4.167 + 4.380 + 4.880= 13.427

Maurice Cheeks

14.093 composite · No. 100 all-time

Maurice Cheeks's Career Composite windows
Window and finishes usedAverage finishWeightContribution
Best 3No. 91981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 121980–81Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate10.66750%5.333
Best 5No. 91981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 121980–81Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211985–86Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211986–87Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate14.80030%4.440
Best 10No. 91981–82Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 111982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 121980–81Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211985–86Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 211986–87Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 221987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 241983–84Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 241984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 251979–80Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 471989–90Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate21.60020%4.320

5.333 + 4.440 + 4.320= 14.093

Averages, contributions, and totals are displayed to three decimal places. The ranking calculation keeps full source precision. Read the full method →

Share this comparisonChoose a social post or link-preview image.

Full comparison · Career comparison

Understand the numbers

Start with impact, then compare playing time and skills. Team results add context. These are not categories to tally into a winner.

1 · Ranking evidence

Impact: who ranks higher, and why?

Career Impact Rank compares entire regular-season careers across NBA history. It combines average league places across the best three, five, and ten seasons, weighted 50%, 30%, and 20%. A lower rank or average place is better.

Impact: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Career Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#92Better result for this metric.#100
Best 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better8.3Better result for this metric.10.7
Best 5 average finishAverage league place · lower is better14.6Better result for this metric.14.8
Best 10 average finishAverage league place · lower is better24.421.6Better result for this metric.
Show more stats: Impact
Impact: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Points-above-replacement rankAll-time rank in estimated regular-season points above replacement#72#69Better result for this metric.
Peak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+5.2Better result for this metric.+4.3
Best 3 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+4.4Better result for this metric.+3.9
Best 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+3.7Better result for this metric.+3.6
Best 10 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+2.9+3.1Better result for this metric.
Points above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better+3,292 pts+3,330 ptsBetter result for this metric.
Seasons ranked No. 100
Top-five impact seasons00
Top-ten impact seasons2Better result for this metric.1

2 · Playing time and responsibility

How much did each player take on?

Read games and minutes alongside impact. Offensive usage is the share of team plays a player ends with a shot, free throws, or a turnover while on court. More usage is not automatically better.

Playing time and workload: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Games1,1071,101
Minutes36,94334,845

3 · Individual skills

Where does each player have an advantage?

These are each player's averages across up to ten best seasons. Career Impact Rank gives the Best 3, Best 5, and Best 10 average league finishes 50%, 30%, and 20% window weights, giving the most weight to the highest peak. The model accounts for position, role, pace, playing time, and team results. Green marks the better result for a metric, including lower turnover rates. Workload and shot-selection measures stay neutral. These rows are not votes toward the ranking.

Shooting

True shooting includes two-pointers, three-pointers, and free throws.

Shooting: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
True shooting percentage54.0%57.2%Better result for this metric.
True shootingAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile54.5%58.2%Better result for this metric.
Show more stats: Shooting
Shooting: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Field-goal percentage46.4%52.3%Better result for this metric.
Three-point percentage32.8%Better result for this metric.25.5%
Free-throw percentage84.9%Better result for this metric.79.3%

Passing

Assist rate is the share of teammates’ made shots assisted while the player is on court. Read turnovers alongside offensive workload; lower turnover rate is generally better.

Passing: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Assist rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile14.6%29.7%Better result for this metric.
Assists per game3.26.7Better result for this metric.
Show more stats: Passing
Passing: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Turnover rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile13.7%Better result for this metric.17.7%

Rebounding

Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.

Rebounding: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Rebound rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile16.6%Better result for this metric.5.0%
Rebounds per game9.8Better result for this metric.2.8

Defense

Steals and blocks describe only part of defense. They do not capture every stop, rotation, or matchup.

Defense: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Steal rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile1.5%3.3%Better result for this metric.
Show more stats: Defense
Defense: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Block rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile1.6%Better result for this metric.0.6%

Scoring

Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.

Scoring: Jack Sikma and Maurice Cheeks
MetricJack SikmaMaurice Cheeks
Points per game15.6Better result for this metric.11.1

4 · Team context, not ranking inputs

What happened with and without them?

A verified with/without comparison is unavailable for this scope. We do not substitute another season’s observations.

Four separate questions

Impact, winning, playoffs, and awards

These are different ways to understand a career. Only Regular Season Impact determines the hussEyquation verdict. The other three sections add basketball context without adding points or changing the rank.

Ranking result

Regular Season Impact

Jack Sikma ranks higher in career impact.

Jack SikmaMetricMaurice Cheeks
#92LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#100
+5.2LeadsPeak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+4.3
+3.7LeadsBest 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+3.6
+3,292 ptsPoints above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better+3,330 ptsLeads

This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.

Context

Team Success

Maurice Cheeks leads every available measure below.

Jack SikmaMetricMaurice Cheeks
626Listed-team regular-season wins803Leads
54.5%Listed-team winning percentage61.2%Leads
450-win team seasons8Leads
060-win team seasons2Leads
11Playoff team seasons14Leads

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Final records for every listed team-season. A traded season can include more than one team.

Context

Playoff Résumé

Maurice Cheeks leads every available measure below.

Jack SikmaMetricMaurice Cheeks
11Playoff appearances13Leads
102Playoff games133Leads
49Team playoff wins74Leads
2Finals appearances3Leads
1Championships1

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Team playoff results count only seasons when the player appeared in a playoff game.

Context

Awards

The advantages are split across the available measures.

Jack SikmaMetricMaurice Cheeks
7LeadsAll-Star4
0MVP0
0All-NBA0
1All-Defense5Leads
0DPOY0
0Rookie of the Year0

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Major regular-season honors are recognition, not inputs to the impact ranking.

How each context field is counted
Listed-team regular-season wins
The sum of each listed team's final wins in every season the player represented that team.
Listed-team winning percentage
Those team wins divided by those teams' total regular-season games.
50- and 60-win team seasons
Listed team-seasons that finished with at least 50 or 60 wins. Shortened seasons are not projected to 82 games.
Team seasons reaching playoffs
Listed team-seasons in which that team qualified for the playoffs.
Playoff appearances and games
Postseasons and games in which the player appeared.
Team playoff wins
Team wins from those postseasons. They describe team results, not individual credit.
Finals appearances and championships
Seasons when the player appeared in the playoffs for the finalist or champion.
Awards
Recorded NBA selections and major regular-season honors. A zero means the source records none; Not available means the source field is missing.

Source and scope Basketball Reference, NBA seasons 1950–51 through 2025–26, accessed 2026-10-09.

Career Shape Explorer

How the careers developed

Follow every regular season by NBA experience or age. This view describes the path; it does not create another verdict.

View
Align careers by
Jack SikmaMaurice CheeksPeak seasonHistorical source qualification

Estimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15

Striped bars mark seasons with fewer than 40 games. A dashed mark means that player had no season at the aligned point.

S means NBA season number; A means player age. Peak labels identify each player's accepted best season. Hover or focus any pair for season detail, or open Season timeline for the complete evidence ledger.